And yet dialogue with Episcopalians brought many of them back into the church in the Anglican/Catholic agreement, they became Catholics while still being allowed to keep some of their Episcopal/Anglican patrimony and liturgy. Would this have happened without dialogue, I doubt it.
I’ve always understood a generation to be 30 years. I didn’t say in living memory, I said not far off living memory, in that when you were a child there could easily have been relations alive who could recall their parents, or grandparents experiences of it, In my book if you can trace it back to people who were alive in your early life who can remember their deceased grandparents talking about it, then its not that far off living memory. If you can fairly easily trace your family connections back into it, it really is very recent history.
on the airwaves. Or certain Jerry Springer episodes where similar things are brought forth (followed by Jerry’s pious post disaster homilies :tsktsk:
). THAT kind of dialogue is best done in private lest the Church be a part of giving an occasion of sin to those who hadn’t considered some corruption until they heard more about it.
Since this is squarely in my wheelhouse, I’ll have a go. My grandfather talked about his grandfathers that were injured in the civil war. That puts me four generations from it and my kids five.
Ok, point taken.
I’m not claiming that my situation is normative but neither would it be unusual. I realize that people pick 20-30 years to define a generation but reality can get in the way.
Never underestimate the power of dialogue and the meeting of minds, accompanied by good will, in international and domestic politics as well as in inter-religious relations at the group and individual level. We dialogue with our adversaries, not with our friends, in the hope of reaching a degree of compromise, even if only incremental, on certain issues and mutual understanding of the other’s position on other issues. It can also lay the groundwork for future negotiations. There is an emotional component to dialogue as well as an instrumental one, and often the former can influence the latter. In short, dialogue is better than conflict and may in the short-term or long-term serve to diffuse or resolve a tense situation.By the exceptionally inflated use of the word “dialogue” in today’s world to the degree that I cringe on someone uttering it, I came to ask myself: “What’s the point of [inter-religious] dialogue anyway?”
I don’t see the point in “dialogue”, at least not in the way I perceive it to be like. What are people hoping to achieve? I mean, i.e. Christian-Muslim “dialogue”. What do people think is going to come of it? Do Christians hope that Muslims will suddenly all convert and say “Oh dear, we’ve been wrong all along! God bless dialogue!”?
To me, “dialogue” sounds more like “Let’s talk about our views around a cup of tea”. Fancy talk but no results. I don’t think one can expect either side to change their religion, much less do I want to see a synthesis of both religions because that would most certainly be a false one.
As Christians, and Muslims would do the same, we believe our religion to be the only True Religion. Why then do we “degrade” (for lack of a better word, which is NOT to imply other people were worth less!) ourselves and sink to the level of another religion/worldview to talk about it and pretend everything were rose-coloured? Why not revive or reenforce mission?
Another example is interdenominational (though Catholicism is not a denomination) “dialogue”. I don’t see why we talk with denominations that are either schismatic and/or heretical in their beliefs and practice in a way that suggests the Catholic Church regarded them as on any level equal with Herself (Not the people, but the doctrine!). I’d favour throwing the full weight and power of the Church behind mission, calling things by what they are: Heresy.
Please don’t take this to mean I was hostile to anyone, though the words could be interpreted that way. I’m genuinely asking your opinion, and if you think I’m wrong on how I view “dialogue” and its purpose, please do correct me.
But the truth of a religion is neither a compromise nor something to be negotiated. A compromise on religion is most definitely false.
I wonder whether any one of them would actually survive.
We’ve cut the rest of the conversation here in order to save space.Now that Isreal is without a President for a while, how does this feel?
“Well, how does it feel?Mmhh. We just go about our business as always. We will do fine. We didn’t always have Presidents and Kings. As a matter of fact there was a time when my ancestors…”
News Journal asked a street fighter:
News Journal will keep you updated on the situation at the Unknown Spa Resort.
Perhaps they’re afraid that if they start talking to one another they might find some common ground, and in doing so might lose some of the moral high ground they each see themselves as occupying?
